Choosing the Right Educational Technology Tool for Your Teaching: A Data-Privacy Review and Pedagogical Perspective into Teaching with Technology

Abstract

Recently, there has been a demand for increased educational technology usage in the university classroom, despite expanded access and implementation there has been little attention paid to student data privacy concerns. Our work is one institution's response to addressing the data privacy gap by creating a comprehensive review process for educational technology discernment and adoption. Our review process provides a critical degree of reliability and validity for informed decision-making surrounding educational technology selection. We prioritize the frames of safety, pedagogy, consistency, and accessibility throughout the review. With the creation of this review process educational technology stakeholders can make empirically based decisions regarding educational technologies. While this work is only one institution's response, we believe that this process and approach can empower a broad set of stakeholders to consider their method behind adopting educational technologies.

Keywords

educational technology pedagogy teaching and learning data privacy data security and accessibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alier

Casañ Guerrero

M. J.

Amo

Severance

Fonseca

(2021). Privacy and e-learning: A pending task. Sustainability, 13(16), 9206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169206

Barry

Murphy

Drew

(2014). From deconstructive misalignment to constructive alignment: Exploring student uses of mobile technologies in university classrooms. Computers & Education, 81(2015), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.014

Bonwell

C. C.

Eison

J. A.

(1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Carle

A. C.

Jaffee

Miller

(2009). Engaging college science students and changing academic achievement with technology: A quasi-experimental preliminary investigation. Computers & Education, 52(2), 376–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.005

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

A. T.

Olgun

Sundurur

Sendurur

(2012). Teaching beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (2021). Home, US Department of Education (ED), 25 Aug. 2021, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

FERPA. Compliance, 21 Apr. 2021, https://www.mines.edu/compliance/ferpa/

Fink

L. D.

(2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.

Gilbert

(2019). Inclusive design for a digital world: Designing with accessibility in mind (1st edition). Apress.

10.

Hodges

Moore

Lockee

Trust

Bond

(2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCASE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.

11.

Initiative (WAI), W. W. A (n.d.). Accessibility principles. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Retrieved May 5, 2022, from https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-principles/

12.

Javed, Y., & Odhabi, H. (2018). Active learning in classrooms using online tools: Evaluating pear-deck for students' engagement. 2018 Fifth HCT information technology trends (ITT) (vol. 1, pp. 126–131).

13.

Jeong

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

(2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654

14.

Johnson

A. M.

Jacovina

M. E.

Russell

D. E.

Soto

C. M.

(2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In Crossley

S. A.

McNamara

D. S.

(Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 13–29). Taylor & Francis. Published with acknowledgment of federal support.

15.

Kim

H. J.

Hong

J. I.

(2020). Students’ academic use of mobile technology and higher order thinking skills: The role of active engagement. Education Sciences, 10(3), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030047

16.

King

P. C.

(2012). Technology and teaching philosophy. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.2.f

17.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

18.

Lazar

Goldstein

Taylor

(2015). Ensuring digital accessibility through process and policy. Morgan Kaufmann.

19.

McClean

Crowe

(2017). Making room for interactivity: Using the cloud-based audience response system Nearpod to enhance engagement in lectures. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 364(6), fnx052. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx052

20.

Mehta

K. J.

Miletich

Detyna

(2021). Content-specific differences in Padlet perception for collaborative learning amongst undergraduate students. Research in Learning Technology, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2551

21.

(2011). Evidence on instructional technology and student engagement in an auditing course. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4), 149.

22.

Mokhtar

Karim

(2021). Exploring students behaviour in using google classroom during COVID-19 pandemic: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). International Journal of Modern Education, 3(8), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJMOE.380015

23.

Pandian

(2021). The effects of integrating external applications into learning management systems. Undergraduate Research office at Texas A&M University.

24.

Postsecondary National Policy Institute (2021). “Students with Disabilities in Higher Education”. https://pnpi.org/about/

25.

Prinsloo

Slade

Khalil

(2022). The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13216

26.

Shore

Reddy

Klein

(2022). A student-centered privacy model for responsible technology use. Higher Education Implications for Teaching and Learning During COVID-19, 81.

27.

Song

Singleton

E. S.

Hill

J. R.

Koh

M. H.

(2004). Improving online learning student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003

28.

Upadhyaya

Vrinda . (2021). Impact of technostress on academic productivity of university students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1647–1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10319-9

29.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (2018). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

30.

World Wide Web Consortium (2018). Web content accessibility guidelines, 2.1. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag21/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB